Since I follow Tim Challies on Twitter sometimes I drift into the things he is reading. Last week I was somewhat intrigued to see that one of his A La Carte topics was on the "5 Dangers of Fallible Prophecy" (posted on TheCripplegate.com). I took the bait.
I was heartened to discover that, as a budding continuationist, I am in pretty good company: Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (who, from this point, I will refer to as "the doctor"), Wayne Grudem, John Piper and DA Carson (just to name a few).
Some of you may have read the postings from my Scriptural exploration of this topic last summer. These mostly stemmed from a growing awareness on my part to the space this topic is given in Scripture, not from exposure to Christian writings or debates.
Anyhow, I made a little stink in the comment section of this committed cessationist cohort of bloggers. So much so that one of their contributors created an entirely new post to answer my objections. (If you read through the comments of the first post and compare them with the second, you'll see he is ostensibly continuing our conversation--something I invited him to do in the comment's section.)
In supporting a continuationist view on this post, I must confess that I felt a little like a voice in the wilderness! The cessionationist perspective on gifts like prophecy is that they ceased after the foundation of the church. This steps from their interpretations of Ephesians 2:20 and 1 Corinthians 13:8-10.
The argument is that the church was "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets" and that now these roles/gifts are not needed. They argue that when Paul wrote the following words, he was describing the establishment of the church (not the second coming of Jesus):
"Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away." (1 Cor. 13:8-10)In truth--though we don't agree--they argue from a plausible perspective. However, I do think that their cessationist lens precludes them from doing a more thorough inquiry into the topic.
Here's what I mean.
A few years ago, my sister-in-law was going to buy coffee. She asked if I liked "flavored coffee".
I said, "no."
At which point, my wife (not a coffee drinker) protested, "You like flavored coffee!" But then she paused, her brow furrowed and she admitted, "I just realized that I don't know what 'flavored coffee' is."
As we are forming our views of what the prophetic is, and whether it is still an active gift, it is important to make sure we know what prophecy is. The Bible is filled with great material, and the spectrum is nuanced and broad.
You'll see in the first post that the "5 Dangers" all have to do with a simplistic understanding of the issue and boil down to fears and misgivings about "what if". I'm not saying that there isn't an argument to be made for cessationism, but again and again I see cessationists trot out a fairly superficial picture of the prophetic. If we are going to reject something, it behooves us to know what it is we're rejecting.
I'm bringing this back up because I enjoyed the continued opportunity to explore this topic, and I wanted to invite your input.
If you're at all interested, go ahead and read these two postings from Cripplegate, along with the comments:
(Be aware, it's a little bit of a cessationist feeding frenzy!)
You might also listen to the debate between Wayne Grudem and Ian Hamilton that sparked the piece.
After that I'm going shamelessly plug my own 5 part series from last summer. This will allow you to see more of my background on the topic. Here they are:
No comments:
Post a Comment